The Great Cryo'd Outlet Test

Now, now, Eldartford. If you were truly objective in your observations (are any of us really?), you would also allow for the following potential scenarios/conclusions associated with your findings:

1. Your hearing is not what you think it to be.

2. You are not the scientist you think you are.

3. Your equipment is not what you think it to be.

4. The product tested was not cryogenically treated.

5. You had too much chili the night prior to the testing.

6. Eldartford really does not exist. He is only a figment of our imagination. (Hey, it's a possibility!)

I'm not saying any of the above are true or not true, but any one or any combination of the above are very distinct possibilities and if mentioned would at the very least demonstrate greater objectivity on your part.

-IMO

Stehno: As the sender of the outlets, I know that #4 and #6 are not true.

That being said, Ed has drawn his conclusions and so be it. One thing I do have slight problem with is that Ed, in this situation seems to be doing the listening in a re-configured system that is quite a bit different than that which he normally listens to, and then doing quick A-B comparisons. I would feel more comfortable with comparisons being made in a system and room that is identical to which the tester normally listens to. I also feel that quick switching (sepecially within the context of a system that the listener is unfamiliar with) is less than ideal and that the system should be listened to for a considerable period of time fully powered up, perhaps even 2-3 days with one receptacle and then switched over to the other. Ideally, as I've said before, but not possible in this case, comparisons should be made with a system drawing entirely (no mix and match) from one type of receptacle. I don't consider myself to be a true scientist, but there are a lot of variables here.

I'd be curious, Ed, if it is easy for you to do, to compare either of the outlets to the stock outlet you are using to see if you could discern any difference between your stock and what I sent you. If it's too much trouble, don't bother.

But, I'm comfortable with Ed's conclusions and would only point out that one can argue just as vociferously that his conclusions are just as "psychological" as those arrived at by the pro cryo camp. Kind of an endless circle of an argument. At least we've gone through the process.

Ed,

I give you credit for at least doing your own listening and drawing your own conclusion.

Thanks for the report.

Eldartford, hopefully my previous post was taken tongue-in-cheek. At least that was the intention. Sorry for any offense.

But it is interesting that you noticed no difference. My experience with cryo-treatment only started two weeks ago and that was with just one 20amp cryo-treated Hubbell IEC connector from Jena Labs for my amplifier. And I was quite surprised at the improvements.

-IMO

Thanks for not beating up on me too much because I don't hear an effect. This was an initial report. I ain't done yet.

1. The initial multichannel test, with the cryo powering only source electronics, was an attempt to do a test with minimal change to my regular (well known) system.

2. If it takes several days of operation on the cryo outlet for a difference to be audible I can't do the test. My auditory memory is not that good.

By the way, on one cut of the Eva Cassidy CD I did find it necessary to go back and forth a few times before I finally concluded that there was no difference. It is not easy to make this kind of subjective decision. That is why a definitive answer would require extensive double-blind testing.

3. As yet, to my surprise, no one has complained about use of a digital source. I intend to play some vinyl, and I will experiment with power to the outboard phono stage.

Any other suggestions?